Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

From Philip Cunningham: The human eye, like the human brain, is a wonder

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

(Which allegedly required no actual design) With references, courtesy Philip Cunningham:

The human eye consists of over two million working parts making it second only to the brain in complexity (1).

The retina covers less than a square inch, and contains 137 million light-sensitive receptor cells. The retina possesses 7 million cones, which provide color information and sharpness of images, and 120 million rods which are extremely sensitive detectors of white light (2).

There are between seven to ten-million shades of color the human eye can detect (3).

The rod can detect a single photon. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way (4).

On average, about a quarter of a billion photons enter our eyes each second (5).

For visible light, the energy carried by a single photon would be around a tiny 4 x 10-19 Joules; this energy is just sufficient to excite a single molecule in a photoreceptor cell of an eye (6).

The eye is so sensitive that it can, under normal circumstances, detect a candle 1.6 miles away (7),

But if you’re sitting on a mountain top on a clear, moonless night you can see a match struck 50 miles away (8).

It only takes a few trillionths of a second, (picoseconds), for the retina to absorb a photon in the visible range of the spectrum (9).

The inverted retina, far from being badly designed, is a design feature, not a design constraint. Müller cells in the ‘backwards’ retina span the thickness of the retina and act as living fiber optic cables to shepherd photons through to separate receivers, much like coins through a change sorting machine (10).

The eye is infinitely more complex than any man-made camera (11).

The eye can handle between 500,000 and 1.5 million messages simultaneously, and gathers 80% of all the knowledge absorbed by the brain (12).

The brain receives millions of simultaneous reports from the eyes. When its designated wavelength of light is present, each rod or cone triggers an electrical response to the brain, which then absorbs a composite set of yes-or-no messages from all the rods and cones (13).

There is a biological computer in the retina which compresses, and enhances the edges, of the information from all those millions of light sensitive cells before sending it to the visual cortex where the complex stream of information is then decompressed (14).

This data compression process has been referred to as “the best compression algorithm around,” (15 & 15a).

While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real-time performance goes unchallenged. To actually simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second (16). (of note: the preceding comparison was made in 1985 when Cray supercomputers ruled the supercomputing world).

In an average day, the eye moves about 100,000 times, and our mind seems to prepare for our eye movements before they occur (17).

In terms of strength and endurance, eyes muscles are simply amazing. You’d have to walk 50 miles to give your legs the same workout as the muscles in one of your eyes get in a day (18).

The brain exploits a feedback system which produces phenomenally precise eye movements (19).

The human is the only species known to shed tears when they are sad (20).

Tears are not just saline. Tears have a similar structure to saliva and contain enzymes, lipids, metabolites and electrolytes (21).

And, tears contain a potent microbe-killer (lysozyme) which guards the eyes against bacterial infection (22).

The average eye blinks one to two times each minute for infants and ten times faster for adults.

This blinking adds up to nearly 500 million blinks over an average lifetime (23).

References:

  1. – 20 Facts About the Amazing Eye – 2014
  2. An eye is composed of more than 2 million working parts…. 20: Eyes are the second most complex organ after the brain. – Susan DeRemer, CFRE – Discovery Eye Foundation
  3. Vision and Light-Induced Molecular Changes

Excerpt : “The retina is lined with many millions of photoreceptor cells that consist of two types: 7 million cones provide color information and sharpness of images, and 120 million rods (Figure 3) are extremely sensitive detectors of white light to provide night vision.” – Rachel Casiday and Regina Frey Department of Chemistry, Washington University

  1. – Number of Colors Distinguishable by the Human Eye – 2006 “Experts estimate that we can distinguish perhaps as many as 10 million colors.” – Wyszecki, Gunter. Color. Chicago: World Book Inc, 2006: 824…. “Our difference threshold for colors is so low that we can discriminate some 7 million different color variations (Geldard, 1972).” – Myers, David G. Psychology. Michigan: Worth Publishers, 1995: 165. From Number of Colors Distinguishable by the Human Eye
  2. Study suggests humans can detect even the smallest units of light – July 21, 2016

Excerpt: Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light. Previous studies had established that human subjects acclimated to the dark were capable only of reporting flashes of five to seven photons…

it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,” says Vaziri. “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”…

The gathered data from more than 30,000 trials demonstrated that humans can indeed detect a single photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance.

“What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise?

  1. How many photons get into your eyes? – 2016

Excerpt : About half a billion photons reach the cornea of the eye every second, of which about half are absorbed by the ocular medium. The radiant flux that reaches the retina is therefore approx. 2*10^8 photons/s.

  1. Photon Excerpt For visible light the energy carried by a single photon is around a tiny 4×10–19 joules; this energy is just sufficient to excite a single molecule in a photoreceptor cell of an eye, thus contributing to vision.[4]
  2. How Far Can We See and Why? Excerpt: “Detecting a candle flame: Researchers believe that without obstructions, a person with healthy but average vision could see a candle flame from as far as 1.6 miles.”
  3. An Eye for Exercise Your eye is a very active organ – December 28, 2001

(HealthDayNews) — The cells in the retina are so sensitive that if you’re sitting on a mountain top on a clear, moonless night you can see a match struck 50 miles away.

  1. Vision and Light-Induced Molecular Changes

Excerpt: “Thus, when 11-cis-retinal absorbs a photon in the visible range of the spectrum, free rotation about the bond between carbon atom 11 and carbon atom 12 can occur and the all-trans-retinal can form. This isomerization occurs in a few picoseconds (10-12 s) or less.” – Rachel Casiday and Regina Frey, Department of Chemistry, Washington University

  1. Fiber optic light pipes in the retina do much more than simple image transfer – Jul 21, 2014

Excerpt: Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly. Indeed in simply engineered systems, like CMOS or CCD image sensors, a back-illuminated design manufactured by flipping the silicon wafer and thinning it so that light hits the photocathode without having to navigate the wiring layer can improve photon capture across a wide wavelength band. But real eyes are much more crafty than that.

A case in point are the Müller glia cells that span the thickness of the retina. These high refractive index cells spread an absorptive canopy across the retinal surface and then shepherd photons through a low-scattering cytoplasm to separate receivers, much like coins through a change sorting machine. A new paper in Nature Communications describes how these wavelength-dependent wave-guides can shuttle green-red light to cones while passing the blue-purples to adjacent rods. The idea that these Müller cells act as living fiber optic cables has been floated previously. It has even been convincingly demonstrated using a dual beam laser trap….

…In the retina, and indeed the larger light organ that is the eye, there is much more going on than just photons striking rhodopsin photopigments. As far as absorbers, there are all kinds of things going on in there—various carontenoids, lipofuscins and lipochromes, even cytochrome oxidases in mitochondria that get involved at the longer wavelegnths….

,,In considering not just the classical photoreceptors but the entire retina itself as a light-harvesting engine… that can completely refigure (its) fine structure within a few minutes to handle changing light levels, every synapse appears as an essential machine that percolates information as if at the Brownian scale, or even below….

  1. The Wonder of Sight – April 15, 2020

Excerpt: The eye processes approximately 80% of the information received from the outside world. In fact, the eyes can handle 500,000 messages simultaneously. It happens all the time, and you don’t even have to think about it. Your eyes just do it! The eye is infinitely more complex than any man-made camera or telescope.

  1. Walk By Faith – Now See Here, Touch & Smell to Discern Good & Evil – July 6, 2018

Excerpt: “I Am Joe’s Eye” (from the Reader’s Digest series) says “For concentrated complexities, no other organ in Joe’s body can equal me … I have tens of millions of electrical connections and can handle 1.5 million simultaneous messages. I gather 80 percent of all the knowledge Joe absorbs.”

  1. Fearfully and Wonderfully Made – Philip Yancey, Paul Brand

Excerpt: The brain receives millions of simultaneous reports from the eyes. When its designated wavelength of light is present, each rod or cone triggers an electrical response to the brain, which then absorbs a composite set of yes-or-no messages from all the rods and cones.

  1. Retina – Spatial encoding

Excerpt: When the retina sends neural impulses representing an image to the brain, it spatially encodes (compresses) those impulses to fit the limited capacity of the optic nerve. Compression is necessary because there are 100 times more photoreceptor cells than ganglion cells. This is done by “decorrelation”, which is carried out by the “centre–surround structures”, which are implemented by the bipolar and ganglion cells.

There are two types of centre–surround structures in the retina – on-centres and off-centres. On-centres have a positively weighted centre and a negatively weighted surround. Off-centres are just the opposite. Positive weighting is more commonly known as excitatory, and negative weighting as inhibitory.

These centre–surround structures are not physical apparent, in the sense that one cannot see them by staining samples of tissue and examining the retina’s anatomy. The centre–surround structures are logical (i.e., mathematically abstract) in the sense that they depend on the connection strengths between bipolar and ganglion cells. It is believed that the connection strength between cells is caused by the number and types of ion channels embedded in the synapses between the bipolar and ganglion cells.

The centre–surround structures are mathematically equivalent to the edge detection algorithms used by computer programmers to extract or enhance the edges in a digital photograph. Thus, the retina performs operations on the image-representing impulses to enhance the edges of objects within its visual field.

  1. JPEG for the mind: How the brain compresses visual information – February 11, 2011

Excerpt “Computers can beat us at math and chess,” said Connor, “but they can’t match our ability to distinguish, recognize, understand, remember, and manipulate the objects that make up our world.” This core human ability depends in part on condensing visual information to a tractable level. For now, at least, the brain format seems to be the best compression algorithm around.

15a. Optimised Hardware Compression, The Eyes Have It. – 2011

  1. Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance! by Dr. David Menton on August 19, 2017

Excerpt: In an article in Byte magazine (April 1985), John Stevens compares the signal processing ability of the cells in the retina with that of the most sophisticated computer designed by man, the Cray supercomputer:

“While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (one hundredth of a second) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.”

  1. Looking At What The Eyes See – February 25, 2011

Excerpt: We move our eyes three times a second, over 100,000 times each day. Why isn’t life blurrier? Reporting in Nature Neuroscience, psychologist Martin Rolfs and colleagues found that our mind seems to prepare for our eye movements before they occur, helping us keep track of objects in the visual field.

  1. An Eye for Exercise Your eye is a very active organ – December 28, 2001 (HealthDayNews) — Did you know that you’d have to walk 50 miles to give your legs the same workout as the muscles in one of your eyes get in a day?
  2. How do our eyes move in perfect synchrony? By Benjamin Plackett – June 21, 2020

Excerpt: “You have a spare one in case you have an accident, and the second reason is depth perception, which we evolved to help us hunt,” said Dr. David Guyton, professor of ophthalmology at The Johns Hopkins University. But having two eyes would lead to double vision if they didn’t move together in perfect synchrony. So how does the body ensure our eyes always work together?

To prevent double vision, the brain exploits a feedback system, which it uses to finely tune the lengths of the muscles controlling the eyes. This produces phenomenally precise eye movements, Guyton said.

Each eye has six muscles regulating its movement in different directions, and each one of those muscles must be triggered simultaneously in both eyes for them to move in unison, according to a 2005 review in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. “It’s actually quite amazing when you think about it,” Guyton told Live Science. “The brain has a neurological system that is fantastically organized because the brain learns over time how much stimulation to send to each of the 12 muscles for every desired direction of gaze.”

  1. Why Only Humans Shed Emotional Tears – 2018

Abstract Producing emotional tears is a universal and uniquely human behavior…

  1. Facts About Tears – Dec. 21, 2018 Excerpt Tears Have Layers

Tears are not just saline. They have a similar structure to saliva and contain enzymes, lipids, metabolites and electrolytes. Each tear has three layers:

An inner mucus layer that keeps the whole tear fastened to the eye.

A watery middle layer (the thickest layer) to keep the eye hydrated, repel bacteria and protect the cornea.

An outer oily layer to keep the surface of the tear smooth for the eye to see through, and to prevent the other layers from evaporating.

Lacrimal glands above each eye produce your tears…

  1. How Tears Go ‘Pac-Man’ To Beat Bacteria – January 20, 2012

Excerpt: In 1922, a few years before he won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of penicillin, bacteriologist Alexander Fleming discovered in human tears a germ-fighting enzyme which he named lysozyme. He collected and crystallized lysozyme from his own tears, then wowed contemporaries at Britain’s Royal Society by demonstrating its miraculous power to dissolve bacteria before their very eyes.

“That’s a seriously bodacious experiment”…

  1. Eyelids—Intermittent Wipers – Dr. Don DeYoung – October 20, 2013

Excerpt: The blinking of our eyes is automatic and essential. Its saline washer fluid moistens and protects the outer cornea of the eye while removing dust. Other protective features include our eyebrow “umbrellas” and recessed eyeball sockets.

The average eye blinks one to two times each minute for infants and ten times faster for adults. This blinking adds up to nearly 500 million blinks over an average lifetime. The actual mechanism, however, is not well understood. It may involve a “blinking center” in the brain.

Today billions of windshield wipers duplicate the eye’s intermittent blinking. Yet none last as long or work as efficiently as our God-given eyelids.

Comments
JVL @336 demonstrates the problem with how he argues with this:
Right. So, how do you account for the thousands (if not millions) of working biologists who have also come to the non-design conclusion?
JVL's "arguments" are themselves never from the actual evidence, or about the actual logic; he always points at what other people say about the evidence. He did this back in the political discussion wrt the fraud accusations and evidence. His counter - "argument" was always in the form of quoting what some reporter, judge, or defendant said about the evidence. He couldn't be bothered to do the research into the laws and into the evidence; he just parroted what other people said as if that was the same as "making his case." JVL's defense is always, "Hey, people I think are really smart and credible agree with me!" - so he considers his position "perfectly rational," and so he makes inane statements like
I think we now know that unguided natural processes are capable of being the cause.
Really? Really? 1. How was homochirality achieved in the prebiotic world? 2. How did the isolation, purification and storage of prebiotic chemicals occur? (necessary for the building of the simplest molecular machine, which are necessary for life) Those are just two (well, 4) of the things necessary for the beginning of life to occur. If "we know" that "unguided natural processes are capable of being the cause," we must know how these things occurred in a prebiotic environment. It's when you make inane statements like this that we all know you're talking out of your *** from false confidence in what other people say about the evidence, and not from any actual understanding of the evidence.William J Murray
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
William J Murray: I don’t accept any view as “perfectly rational” – or even “rational” – until the person holding that view demonstrates it as rational. I guess you haven’t been paying attention to the debates I’ve had here. When your “argument” is entirely made by referring to or quoting what people say about the evidence, you have zero basis to consider your view “perfectly rational.” I have considered the evidence. I have read about it, I have (yes) talked to people about it, I have considered the ramifications of it. I have made up my own mind based on the evidence and, yes, the arguments proffered. Just like you have about ID. Correct? Just because other people also think its a rational view doesn’t make it so. However, I’m sure you find that others agreeing with you – especially obviously intelligent people including scientists! – is sufficient reason for considering your position “perfectly rational.” Rationality by consensus! Rationality by authority! Okay, what is your criterion for considering a view as rational or not? Is your view about ID rational? I’ sure that’s what they’re teaching in school these days anyway. Next we’ll be voting on whether or not 2+2=4. Gotta love an ad hominem attack draped in a slippery-slope argument. Are you sure you're the right judge of rationality?JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
PS: Wiki of course keeps getting "updated" but remains toxic, so every now and then it is quite appropriate to mow the lawn. JVL has a choice, provide another more credible case for her [I think?] view or else let6 that site stand as the general level case against ID put up by the sort of ideologues that seem to dominate online discussion.kairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Kf, You are being irrational. He knows there is an answer and has for a long time. It’s those who answer that are being irrational. It’s a game being played snd he is winning big time.jerry
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Jerry, there is a for record to document that there is an answer, here in light of JVL's declining, we have put Wikipedia on the table. This shows the true balance on merits and heads off at the pass, onward claims that we had no answer. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
You sound like everyone else: there must be something wrong with me because ID is obviously true. You cannot accept the fact that it’s perfectly rational to hold a differing view. And because I don’t see you ever changing your opinion should I bother defending my own view? I don't accept any view as "perfectly rational" - or even "rational" - until the person holding that view demonstrates it as rational. I guess you haven't been paying attention to the debates I've had here. When your "argument" is entirely made by referring to or quoting what people say about the evidence, you have zero basis to consider your view "perfectly rational." Just because other people also think its a rational view doesn't make it so. However, I'm sure you find that others agreeing with you - especially obviously intelligent people including scientists! - is sufficient reason for considering your position "perfectly rational." Rationality by consensus! Rationality by authority! I' sure that's what they're teaching in school these days anyway. Next we'll be voting on whether or not 2+2=4.William J Murray
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: WJM @316 lays out the apparent contradiction in your view. Unless you address that problem then yes, you can’t possibly be right because what you affirm based on evidence in one case, you deny based on the same evidence in another. Right. So, how do you account for the thousands (if not millions) of working biologists who have also come to the non-design conclusion? That is not our intention or interest. The idea of an intelligent designer or creator God has been universally present in human culture. You’re saying that it’s “not plausible”. That is NOT what I said. Why am I bothering? I think one’s theological journey is relevant. It should not be mocked or disrespected – a certain atmosphere of trust is required. Likewise for my view. Oh, no . . . that's not right. Here it's possible to mock and shame anyone who disagrees with ID. As happens here all the time. To sum up: to disagree with the design inference means you are wrong. Period. You may be delusional, you may be evil, you're probably a troll, you are attacking ID and clearly you can't (or won't) reason properly. Anyone disagree with that? Kairosfocus: ET is quite correct that clinging to a corrected irrational view — that it must first be shown irrational is an obvious, silent premise — is irrational. That is, it is closed mindedness in the teeth of cogent correction. One may dispute whether in a given case cogent correction is given but that is a further matter. A rational person heeds sound correction. In the case of Wikipedia as a capital example, I put it to you that adequate correction is on the table. I am just wrong, wrong, wrong. No one here wants a debate or a discussion. The matter is settled and those who disagree can be dismissed summarily as not right in the head. Jerry: I think the ones here who answer the irrational answers are also irrational. What logical purpose could these answers be but madness to expect a logical result? See, I'm not even worth talking to.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
I think the ones here who answer the irrational answers are also being completely irrational. What logical purpose could these answers lead to? It’s madness to expect a different result? Everyone here knows the snarky definition of insanity. The only rational person in these discussions is JVL who is playing the rest like a well tuned violin. Everyone who responds to him wants to be the one who changes him but he is getting exactly what he wants. Why should he change? Again the irrational ones are those who answer him each time.jerry
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
JVL, ET is quite correct that clinging to a corrected irrational view -- that it must first be shown irrational is an obvious, silent premise -- is irrational. That is, it is closed mindedness in the teeth of cogent correction. One may dispute whether in a given case cogent correction is given but that is a further matter. A rational person heeds sound correction. In the case of Wikipedia as a capital example, I put it to you that adequate correction is on the table. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: Again, a clear hit piece. Something that many working scientists would agree with. But, because it differs from your view it MUST be motivated by something other than just disagreement. Look at the language you use: you always cast aspersions on people's motives and thoughts. you project. I have put a specific empirically founded argument on the table, which you are dodging and evading. What do you want me to say? I think live arose on Earth via purely natural and unguided processes. Therefore they account for what you call functional, complex specified information in DNA. I'm not evading anything. You're not listening to my answer. On your refusal to provide substance, I have given Wikipedia as a yardstick of what is going on. Crooked yardstick. Casting aspersions, again. I just note that the crooked yardstick metaphor addresses the complex issue of ill founded ideological agendas and worldviews rising to widespread support, informed by the issues lurking in Plato’s parable of the cave. Again, those who disagree with you must be at the very least ill-informed. You cast aspersions on differing view all the time. Endlessly. In context of the above, we can see clear ideological warping at Wikipedia, tied to known ideological agendas. More broadly, I note that JVL, in recent objections, inescapably appeals to the first duties of reason, yet again. Inescapable and antecedent to reasoned argument, so true and self evident. Just, it seems, very unpalatable in a day inclined to wall off values and truths. Patently, there can be truths about values and duties, etc. — moral truths. Where first duties are part of the framework of our reasoning. Duties spectacularly violated by Wikipedia’s ideologues, with grave implications. Endlessly. Directly compare the actual demonstrated it is forbidden, to consider empirical evidence that may point to design, I've looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion from you. Apparently that makes me delusional or evil in some way. And BTW, if you a priori decide to project that designer is a default that is just being given a pseudoscientific fig leaf, you are creating a strawman caricature on what Hoyle et al did and what Thaxton et al did, or even Orgel and Wicken. That is what the Wiki ideologues did (and have abused their official status in that sadly flawed encyclopedia to enforce), and it is wrong. That is a capital example of a pattern of thinking I first saw with Marxists 40+ years ago, then began to understand better i/l/o Plato’s parable of the cave and Jesus’ responsive remark on when eyes are bad one is filled with darkness, if one’s “light” is in reality darkness, how great is that darkness. Crooked yardsticks are a real issue and too often are all too relevant. Why don't you just ask me if I'm assuming 'no designer is permitted'? Oh, that's right, because you wouldn't believe me if I said I'm not making that assumption. My bad.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
JVL
Because I can’t possibly be right can I?
WJM @316 lays out the apparent contradiction in your view. Unless you address that problem then yes, you can't possibly be right because what you affirm based on evidence in one case, you deny based on the same evidence in another.
Why should I bother to try and respond honestly if I end up getting labelled as a liar or having something wrong with me because I don’t agree with you?
I didn't say that. I spoke of a problem but I'm referring to underlying thought structures, not that there is something wrong with you.
I’ll leave you and Upright BiPed and Bournagain77 and Kairosfocus to debate my shortcomings and motives.
That is not our intention or interest. The idea of an intelligent designer or creator God has been universally present in human culture. You're saying that it's "not plausible". I think one's theological journey is relevant. It should not be mocked or disrespected - a certain atmosphere of trust is required. But it's an important factor in drawing conclusions and analyzing the data.Silver Asiatic
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
JVL, search challenge, which has been addressed above, answering your claims to the contrary. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
JVL, the inference, patently, is to design as process. Evidence of arson as cause of a fire is separate from trying to identify whodunit. Assuming arson ahead of reason to infer it, is question-begging. Similarly, it is question-begging to impose ahead of time that it is forbidden to consider arson. Directly compare the actual demonstrated it is forbidden, to consider empirical evidence that may point to design, as I documented above from Monod. There are many other cases of that ideological a priori. And BTW, if you a priori decide to project that designer is a default that is just being given a pseudoscientific fig leaf, you are creating a strawman caricature on what Hoyle et al did and what Thaxton et al did, or even Orgel and Wicken. That is what the Wiki ideologues did (and have abused their official status in that sadly flawed encyclopedia to enforce), and it is wrong. That is a capital example of a pattern of thinking I first saw with Marxists 40+ years ago, then began to understand better i/l/o Plato's parable of the cave and Jesus' responsive remark on when eyes are bad one is filled with darkness, if one's "light" is in reality darkness, how great is that darkness. Crooked yardsticks are a real issue and too often are all too relevant. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
ET: Unfortunately all probability arguments are evidence against unguided evolution. That makes no sense at all. However it is irrational to hold an irrational view. Like I said: anyone who disagrees with you must be irrational. They couldn't possibly hold a different view and make sense.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
F/N: I lost a ps, so I just note that the crooked yardstick metaphor addresses the complex issue of ill founded ideological agendas and worldviews rising to widespread support, informed by the issues lurking in Plato's parable of the cave. The point is, we had better be aware that our thinking can be warped at core and that we need to be open to plumb line self evident truths as naturally straight and upright correctives. 2 + 3 = 5 is self evident, such truths exist, though they never amount to enough to base a worldview. In context of the above, we can see clear ideological warping at Wikipedia, tied to known ideological agendas. More broadly, I note that JVL, in recent objections, inescapably appeals to the first duties of reason, yet again. Inescapable and antecedent to reasoned argument, so true and self evident. Just, it seems, very unpalatable in a day inclined to wall off values and truths. Patently, there can be truths about values and duties, etc. -- moral truths. Where first duties are part of the framework of our reasoning. Duties spectacularly violated by Wikipedia's ideologues, with grave implications. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
JVL, you project. I have put a specific empirically founded argument on the table, which you are dodging and evading. On your refusal to provide substance, I have given Wikipedia as a yardstick of what is going on. Crooked yardstick. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
JVL, I continue with Wiki as stand-in, this time on fine tuning: >>Intelligent design proponents have also occasionally appealed to broader teleological arguments>> 24: This sets up a strawman context, the issue is not theology but physical cosmology. >> outside of biology, most notably an argument based on the fine-tuning of universal constants>> 25: specific parameters and laws that set up a local target zone suited to C-chem, aqueous medium cell based life, starting with the abundance of elements and tying to a rage planet circumstance for earth also. Notice, the pioneer of this, Sir Fred Hoyle, was an agnostic. >> that make matter and life possible and which are argued not to be solely attributable to chance. >> 26: Actually, again, search challenge i/l/o the plausible variability of laws and parameters, with implications of the mathematics. Cf Luke Barnes for classic case in point: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf These include the values of fundamental physical constants, the relative strength of nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity between fundamental particles, as well as the ratios of masses of such particles.>> 27: Many dozens of factors are on the table. >> Intelligent design proponent and Center for Science and Culture fellow Guillermo Gonzalez>> 28: Qualification robbing, PhD Astronomer with much research and key papers under his belt as well as a textbook, a pioneer on exoplanet research -- pivotal to the rare planet discussion. And of course the victim of a disgraceful expulsion. >>argues that if any of these values were even slightly different, the universe would be dramatically different, making it impossible for many chemical elements and features of the Universe, such as galaxies, to form.[56]>> 29: The details are worked out, and the convergence of key parameters is particularly noted, certain parameters need to be where they are for multiple reasons. 30: Where, if one argues for oh, the cosmological laws and parameters are more or less locked where they are, that points to a fine tuned super law. 31: Further, infinite causal temporal past is not plausible and that points to necessary being at finite remove as root of reality, stepping over into a bit of math and logic of being for a moment. >> Thus, proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life>> 32: The argument is to intelligently directed configuration of the COSMOS, not to any particular designer or class of designers. Designs tend to come from designers and candidates can be evaluated, but before an arson case is investigated, arson needs to be identified as cause of the fire. >>was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome.>> 33: Conflation of several arguments leading to strawmannish caricature. Fine tuning is clear and widely conceded, we are in a narrow, locally isolated operating point or zone. local isolation is enough even if on other regions of a wall, there is a carpet of flies, when the issue is splat a bullet hits the lone fly. Marksmanship points to marksman and tackdriver rifle, so candidates can be discussed. Where, the onward issue is, fine tuning promotes C-chem, aqueous medium, terrestrial planet, cell based life. 34: Where, the two issues are separate, as empirical matters, in different disciplines. The cosmos has observable parameters and laws with fine tuned properties, even Einstein's cosmological constant and the inflationary epoch hypothesis point there. The precision, net is to 1 in dozens of orders of magnitude. Life uses what we have, and shows FSCO/I, which is a strong sign of design. 35: They then are mutually supportive, a fine tuned cosmos provides the base for cell based life and such life exploits the fine tuned cosmos to implement a brilliantly successful design. >>Scientists have generally responded that these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence.[57][58]>> 36: A dismissive evasion. >> Victor J. Stenger and other critics say both intelligent design and the weak form of the anthropic principle are essentially a tautology; in his view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist because the Universe is able to support life.[59][60][61]>> 37: Strawman. The fine tuning is an empirical inference not a truth by definition. >> The claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination for assuming no other forms of life are possible.>> 38: All that is required is local isolation of the fly that gets hit. The appeal to imagination without empirical warrant is also suspiciously weak. >> Life as we know it might not exist if things were different,>> 39: Local isolation dodged. >> but a different sort of life might exist in its place. >> 40: Show us that alternative then come back and explain the bullet hit on the locally isolated fly. >>A number of critics also suggest that many of the stated variables appear to be interconnected>> 41: That is not so on the whole and to whatever extent it is so -- let's grant, the over 100 are all tied and locked for argument -- it simply points to a higher level of fine tuning. >>and that calculations made by mathematicians and physicists suggest that the emergence of a universe similar to ours is quite probable.[62] >> 42: Nope, the deep isolation is what is pivotal. _______________ Again, a clear hit piece. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
It is perfectly rational to hold a differing view. However it is irrational to hold an irrational view.ET
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
The only predictions borne from unguided evolution are genetic diseases and deformities. No one knows how to test the claim that unguided evolution produced ATP synthase or any bacterial flagellum. Unguided evolution has never advance our knowledge, except with respect to genetic diseases and deformities. Otherwise it is a useless heuristic.ET
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
JVL:
I think unguided evolution is true because of the evidence and data found in the genomic, biogeographic, fossil, morphological and experimental (in which I include human breeding efforts) records.
Pure BS. The only evidence for unguided evolution is found in genetic diseases and deformities. There isn't any evidence that unguided evolution can produce eukaryotes GIVEN starting populations of prokaryotes. And GIVEN eukaryotes there isn't any evidence that unguided evolution can produce developmental biology. The paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" was written because there isn't any evidence and they must rely of probability arguments. Unfortunately all probability arguments are evidence against unguided evolution. What I said is true. So I understand why JVL would take issue with it.ET
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
William J Murray: It’s entirely plausible to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people that some great, intelligent mind designed that information (and also accounts for the fine-tuning of the universal forces.) It has been entirely plausible to some of the greatest minds, including scientific minds, in history. It was entirely plausible to some of the greatest physicists in history, including current ones, that had to account for what they found via quantum theory experimentation (consciousness & information, not matter or “energy,” being fundamental to reality.) That is true. I do not share that view. It’s entirely appropriate for others here to say that your resistance to the design conclusion appears to be the artefact of a somewhat particular worldview that denies the obvious conclusion of the evidence. That evidence not only points directly at intelligent design, it also excludes any other rational explanation (an appeal to virtually impossible, statistical, miraculous “chance” is not a rational explanation) or known causative value. I disagree. My view has come after careful consideration of the evidence, data and arguments made by both 'sides'. I do not believe the evidence only leads to the conclusion of design. I think that it is rational to hold my view. Also, you have no idea of my own personal theological journey. It’s really not reasonable to deny the conclusion of ID because you personally don’t find any proposed designer “plausible.” As I've already explained, the lack of non-genetic physical evidence of a pre-historic intelligent designer is just one point in a multi-threaded argument. The lack of a “plausible” designer does not change the fact that only known, rational, demonstrable causative commodity for the thing in question is intelligent design, I don't think that is the case however. I think we now know that unguided natural processes are capable of being the cause. You sound like everyone else: there must be something wrong with me because ID is obviously true. You cannot accept the fact that it's perfectly rational to hold a differing view. And because I don't see you ever changing your opinion should I bother defending my own view?JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: I am not motive mongering, I have faced your claims and have offered you an opportunity to back them up, declined. You motive monger all the time; you question why people don't see things the way you do and cast aspersions on their beliefs and motives and intelligence with your crooked yardstick metaphor and many other oft repeated phrases like 'agi prop big lie' (used just above). You do not trust anyone you disagree with to be honest and sincere. Many other commenters here insist that someone like me must be lying or crazy or unable to reason. Why? Because I disagree with you on the data and evidence. Apparently having an alternate point of view is not considered normal or healthy or honest. I remember when you offered your challenge a few years ago. When an explanation was offered you repeated the same things you always repeat and were uninfluenced by the counterpoints. If I know I would be repeating the same points made years ago which didn't affect your view then why would they now? I think unguided evolution is true because of the evidence and data found in the genomic, biogeographic, fossil, morphological and experimental (in which I include human breeding efforts) records. Taken all together they present what I consider an extremely strong case and show that unguided natural forces are capable of creating the genetic code and all the functional, complex, specified information contained therein. I do not believe there are biological 'islands of function' because of universal common descent. I agree that the specific origin of life on Earth is still unknown; I would love to see a plausible, unguided path for the origin of RNA and DNA . . . maybe if I'm lucky I will live to see one. If someone finds a verifiable rabbit fossil in a pre-Cambrian layer, if someone finds an irreducibly complex biological structure that is verified by biologists, if someone finds a crashed spaceship or some strong physical indication of a pre-historic intelligent being then I will revise my views as I should. New data means ideas should be modified or even thrown out. I have no animosity towards the ID community. I am not afraid to have a civilised discussion of our views. I am genuinely interested in exactly what kind of intelligent design people are supporting, i.e. when and how in particular, but I know that's pretty much a verboten subject. I am genuinely interested in hearing about a possible ID research agenda, I feel that the 'field' has run out of steam and would be happy to see some more work being done. It would be nice to not have my intelligence or motives questioned. It would be nice not to be called crazy or a 'Darwin-clown' or an 'Evotard' (as ET is fond of saying). But I won't hold my breath. I expect more stuff like this from Jerry:
Incredible amount of attention on one person who is disingenuous at best.
Or this from ET:
Compared to materialism, which only has liars, bluffers and equivocators for support, it is easy to see which has the science and which has the BS.
JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
Incredible amount of attention on one person who is disingenuous at best. Why? This seems the norm here for when someone makes ridiculous comments. Has there been one instance over the years where a person has changed their comments based on logic and evidence? No! Why expect it to happen now? Maybe respond once or twice. But not a thousand times. When this happens, the person making the ridiculous comments is getting exactly what he/she wants.jerry
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
ID is evidenced in cosmology, physics, geology, chemistry and biology. How much independent evidence does one need? Compared to materialism, which only has liars, bluffers and equivocators for support, it is easy to see which has the science and which has the BS. People like JVL want proof. They don't care about scienceET
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
JVL, I now let Wikipedia stand in for you on FSCO/I, though they use the more generic CSI, complex, specified information. Of course, in biology the specification is about biological function, the core test case is DNA, and issues of coding [so, language] and of algorithms [so, goal directed step by step procedures] come up. We can take it as given that you are familiar with how DNA, RNA and Ribosomes function in protein synthesis and with how fold-function domains are isolated in the space of possible AA chains. Let's clip-comment: >>In 1986 [--> TMLO is 1984], Charles B. Thaxton, a physical chemist and creationist,>> 1: Namecalling, he pioneered the modern design theory and did so in a book that was not tied to Biblical exegesis etc, characteristics of Creationism in any relevant sense. He made an argument, based on thermodynamics, information and complexity, that should have been summarised and answered. >>used the term "specified complexity" from information theory>> 2: Actually, he CITED the term from researchers on OOL, in a context that makes plain the core issue. >> when claiming that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell were specified by intelligence,>> 3: Strawman. He developed a detailed discussion on specified complexity, relevant thermodynamics and how such arises. At least DNA is mentioned but it is not drawn out to identify what was being discussed, this is setting up a strawman target. >>and must have originated with an intelligent agent.[25]>> 4: Kindly provide a case of such FSCO/I arising by demonstrably blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, a first step for claiming plausibility of an explanation. There are trillions of cases on the source in intelligence, so deal with the logic of warranted inference to the best explanation. >> The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed in the 1990s by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William A. Dembski.[46]>> 5: Further developed i/l/o the context of configuration spaces, islands that are specified independent of listing configuration, and linked search challenge, expressed in statistical and probabilistic terms. I happen to think that direct search challenge is simpler and forces facing the issue instead of evading on oh how do you get to probability. >> Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and "specified", simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes.>> 6: On an empirically grounded warrant. Notice, the evidence base for inferring that FSCO/I is consistently found to arise from intelligently directed configuration is ducked and the key test case, DNA and/or protein AA chains, on the table since Thaxton et al, has not been seriously addressed. 7: You tell me why I shouldn't infer for cause, that this is a strawman argument being made by Wikipedia's dominant ideologues? >> He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified."[47]>> 8: Thaxton and those he cited also give similar definitions and examples. >> He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.>> 9: At last, very late, DNA is mentioned, of course with warning flags in the form of scare quotes. >>William A. Dembski proposed the concept of specified complexity.[48]>> 10: False, it came through Thaxton et al and is rooted in Orgel and Wicken. I now cite Orgel, 1973, as demonstrative and definitive proof:
living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . . These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.
[--> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken "wiring diagram" for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here, -- here and -- here -- (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).]
One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [--> so if the q's to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions.  [--> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes [--> Orgel had high hopes for what Chem evo and body-plan evo could do by way of info generation beyond the FSCO/I threshold, 500 - 1,000 bits.] [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.]
>>Dembski defines complex specified information (CSI) as anything with a less than 1 in 10[^]150 chance of occurring by (natural) chance.>> 11: No, this is a strawman. Actual definition in NFL:
CONCEPT: NFL, p. 148:“The great myth of contemporary evolutionary biology is that the information needed to explain complex biological structures can be purchased without intelligence. My aim throughout this book is to dispel that myth . . . . Eigen and his colleagues must have something else in mind besides information simpliciter when they describe the origin of information as the central problem of biology. I submit that what they have in mind is specified complexity [cf. p 144 as cited below], or what equivalently we have been calling in this Chapter Complex Specified information or CSI . . . . Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. . . . In virtue of their function [a living organism's subsystems] embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the sense required by the complexity-specificity criterion . . . the specification can be cashed out in any number of ways
[through observing the requisites of functional organisation within the cell, or in organs and tissues or at the level of the organism as a whole. Dembski cites: Wouters, p. 148: "globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms," Behe, p. 148: "minimal function of biochemical systems," Dawkins, pp. 148 - 9: "Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by ran-| dom chance alone. In the case of living things, the quality that is specified in advance is . . . the ability to propagate genes in reproduction." On p. 149, he roughly cites Orgel's famous remark on specified complexity from 1973, which exactly cited reads: " In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . ." And, p. 149, he highlights Paul Davis in The Fifth Miracle: "Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity."] . . .”
DEFINITION: p. 144: [Specified complexity can be more formally defined:] “. . . since a universal probability bound of 1 [chance] in 10^150 corresponds to a universal complexity bound of 500 bits of information, [the cluster] (T, E) constitutes CSI because T [effectively the target hot zone in the field of possibilities] subsumes E [effectively the observed event from that field], T is detachable from E, and and T measures at least 500 bits of information . . . ”
>> Critics say that this renders the argument a tautology: complex specified information cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus,>> 12: Strawman knocked over. The real challenge is to show how blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, without intelligent direction can and does give rise to FSCO/I, for which a random text generation infinite monkeys exercise as I discussed earlier and linked above, is a good case in point. 10^100 config space size too small. >>so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature.[49][n 8][50]>> 13: DNA, RNA, proteins. >>The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument has been discredited in the scientific and mathematical communities.[51][52]>> 14: Naked appeal to collective authority in the face of an obvious cluster of cases in point that were put on the table by Orgel ~ 50 years ago, now. >>Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields,>> 15: Try, engineering, Computer Science, Cryptanalysis, Information theory and more. We live in a digital age, they cannot not know this. This is deception. >> as Dembski asserts. John Wilkins and Wesley R. Elsberry characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as eliminative because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance,>> 16: Dishonest, the successive defaults have been given, the context of inference to best explanation is suppressed, the onward issue of hypothesis testing on nulls and alternatives does not come up before this bald, strawman caricature. We have low contingency on given initial conditions, lawlike regularity is the explanation. We have highly contingent but not independently, simply specified result, chance is best. >> finally defaulting to design. >> 17: Lie. The TWO -- count 'em -- defaults are eliminated in a context where FSCO/I is present, you have hit a narrow, functional target, not the barn door of gibberish, that suggests deliberate aim. >>They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions.[53]>> 18: In fact there are precisely ZERO cases of known origin, where FSCO/I has come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, beyond the 500 - 1,000 bit threshold. Trillions of cases of such by design are readily observed. 19: Anyone who has seriously looked at the matter will know this, the manifest deceit at Wiki here is now at agit prop big lie levels. >>Richard Dawkins, another critic of intelligent design, argues in The God Delusion (2006) that allowing for an intelligent designer to account for unlikely complexity only postpones the problem, as such a designer would need to be at least as complex.[54]>> 20: irrelevant, we are far more complex than the codes, texts and machines we produce. The issue is not inference to designers and debates over their complexity but the credible causal process for an entity before us, and more particularly, a relevant aspect. One needs to consider an object, event, phenomenon, process etc aspect by aspect, various features may be best explained in diverse ways. >>Other scientists have argued that evolution through selection is better able to explain the observed complexity,>> 21: The origin of R/DNA, its code and algorithms CANNOT be accounted for by biological evolution. There is a similar case for the first proteins and their correlation, given the threshold of complexity for a first cell. >>as is evident from the use of selective evolution to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems>> 22: The evolution in question is of course highly fine tuned and designed by 'human "intelligent designers" ' >> that are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers".[55] >> 23: The very situation of genetic and evolutionary computing demonstrates the gross misrepresentation here. _________ Wikipedia fails -- and in so failing by way of patently dishonest strawman tactics in the face of manifest duties to truth, right reason, warrant, fairness etc -- shows that we can be confident that they do not have a cogent response to the actual design inference. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
JVL:
Because I can’t possibly be right can I?
You can be as right as the people who say nature produced Stonehenge and the people who say the earth is flat. You are in good company.ET
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
JVL, The problem is that while you admit to the physical evidence that would in every other case clearly result in a conclusion of design, you deny the conclusion of design in this particular case with the defense: "there is no plausible designer available" to account for the design. What does "not plausible" mean? "Not plausible" to whom, under what worldview? I assume you mean "not plausible" to you. It's entirely plausible to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people that some great, intelligent mind designed that information (and also accounts for the fine-tuning of the universal forces.) It has been entirely plausible to some of the greatest minds, including scientific minds, in history. It was entirely plausible to some of the greatest physicists in history, including current ones, that had to account for what they found via quantum theory experimentation (consciousness & information, not matter or "energy," being fundamental to reality.) It's entirely appropriate for others here to say that your resistance to the design conclusion appears to be the artefact of a somewhat particular worldview that denies the obvious conclusion of the evidence. That evidence not only points directly at intelligent design, it also excludes any other rational explanation (an appeal to virtually impossible, statistical, miraculous "chance" is not a rational explanation) or known causative value. It's perfectly reasonable to say, "Yes, the best conclusion is ID, although we don't know the identity or nature of the designer." It's really not reasonable to deny the conclusion of ID because you personally don't find any proposed designer "plausible." The lack of a "plausible" designer does not change the fact that only known, rational, demonstrable causative commodity for the thing in question is intelligent design, and that no other "explanation" even comes close to being remotely reasonable. The "plausibility" of any proposed designer for a specific artefact is irrelevant to the finding of intelligent design. When a fire investigator makes a finding of arson, the lack of the ability of detectives to find a plausible suspect doesn't change the finding.William J Murray
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
JVL, I am not motive mongering, I have faced your claims and have offered you an opportunity to back them up, declined. I put on the table a specific case relevant to OOL and to origin of body plan level biodiversity: functional, algorithmic, coded information-bearing data structures beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of complexity. This has been put on the table in one form or another by the modern ID research programme since the early 1980's so you cannot justly plead ignorance. It also happens to be the case UB has highlighted. You evaded his challenge and you are evading mine, that's observable behaviour not motive mongering. Consider your bluff called, which is now a judgement that you put up a front but on being challenged are retreating behind a rhetorical squid ink cloud. That suggests that you have for a considerable time been unable to answer this central case, and as, doubtless, you have consulted and checked the usual sites that object to ID, they don't have an answer you are willing to put up before knowledgeable supporters of the design inference on FSCO/I as reliable, empirically tested sign. Recall, in one form or another, this is the core, world of life case put on the table by ID researchers and supporters for about 40 years now, i.e. from Thaxton et al (with support from Hoyle too) on. Whatever your motive, that points to the real balance on the merits. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: That has to be the problem. There is something blocking his decision-making process. Something needs to be resolved so that the path will open up. Because I can't possibly be right can I? Why should I bother to try and respond honestly if I end up getting labelled as a liar or having something wrong with me because I don't agree with you? Did you see what Lieutenant Commander Data said:
The Bible say about atheists that are crazy. It’s the ultimate craziness to say that life on Earth ,a masterpiece made by a Supreme Mind, appeared by chance.
I'll leave you and Upright BiPed and Bournagain77 and Kairosfocus to debate my shortcomings and motives.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT
JVL, 299:
Why don’t you bring up a particular bit of physical evidence that you find compelling and we can, hopefully, have a productive discussion. Don’t just make sweeping generalisations overburdened with vague statements. Let’s talk about the actually evidence. Pick a case.
This is of course in the context of my remarks at 293 [with onward comments at 296 and 7), i.e.:
this very thread provides abundant evidence of intelligence providing FSCO/I [-> recall, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information], in the form of code bearing informational strings well beyond the ASCII form threshold, at 7 bits per character. We have an observation base of trillions of cases of such FSCO/I, just start with the Internet, and go to a hardware store and look at screws for the organisation side. In every case, the source is design, and we can readily see that search challenge in config spaces for 500 to 1,000 bits for the atoms of the sol system at the low end and for the observed cosmos at the high end for ~ 10^17 s would round down to negligible search. That’s why; essentially the reasoning behind the stat mech support to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Further to this, again, March 22, I presented an excerpt on the infinite monkeys theorem as a test, precisely as a case in point https://uncommondescent.com/education/wikipedia-presents-pseudo-knowledge-fake-knowledge-on-id-yet-again/ The result was 10^100 as a factor short of a 72 character ASCII string. Now, you have been around UD for a while so you should know about such and certainly you know about the nature of DNA as a code bearing complex string in the heart of the cell. This implies complex code, algorithms, i.e. linguistic, goal directed information, which on factors on the table is a strong sign of design as cause. So, I think we can safely conclude, bluff called.
I would presume this thread with strings of ascii text [7 bits/character] is physical evidence, the Internet, screws in bins at hardware stores [and onward] are such. The observation that such FSCO/I per observation on a trillion case base, consistently comes about by design is a fact. That is, every observed case of FSCO/I origin beyond the 500 - 1,000 bit [or 72 to 143 ascii character threshold] is design. Where, obviously D/RNA in the cell is a similar case of string data structures expressing coded algorithms that are cumulatively highly complex, per multiple Nobel Prize winning work. Codes, plainly, are language and algorithms are stepwise, goal directed procedures. So, why did you suggest that I failed to provide physical cases, especially when I went on to point to text creation, infinite monkeys theorem exercises as conceded by Wikipedia testifying against interest? Are you not aware that coded meaningful text strings come as isolated zones in configuration spaces dominated by gibberish? So that, until one is on the beach of an island of function, incremental performance is not relevant? Thus, the search challenge of relevance is to find such islands? Which then makes the configuration space observation that the atoms of the sol system or cosmos for 500 and 1,000 bit spaces [000 . . . 0 to 111 . . . 1] cannot credibly search more than a negligible fraction blindly, in ~10^17 s [~ 13.8 BY] a relevant physical issue? That strings can be reduced to binary code and that 3-d functional configurations can be similarly expressed in some description language [cf. AutoCAD etc], so consideration of bit strings is WLOG? Where, BTW, this is essentially the same analytical issue and case that has been on the table since Thaxton et al in the early 1980's. And more? So, why did you set up and knock over a strawman about vagueness and sweeping generalisations? The relevant core case is string data structure, code bearing structures. Molecular nanotech in D/RNA (or onward AA sequences) or computer code or text on paper are just different forms of the string: -*-*-* - . . . -*. once we are beyond 500 - 1,000 bits worth [3.27*10^150 or 1.07*10^301 configs], relevant atomic resources acting as observers at fast chem reaction cycle times per observation, on sol system or observed cosmos scope cannot blindly sample more than a negligible fraction of the config spaces. Where, gibberish dominates over islands of function [unconstrained vs tightly constrained to achieve adequate function]. That is the analytical context for the empirical observation that FSCO/I bearing strings, as opposed to gibberish, consistently come from design. That is, FSCO/I is a strong sign of design. That in DNA we deal with codes so languale and algorithms so goals underscores this. And we pretty well knew that from 1953, as Crick acknowledged in his letter to Michael, his son. He directly compared to printed text. So, we can freely conclude that [a] you are grossly ignorant of the core FSCO/I based ID case, its context of Darwin's pond or the like, and/or [b] you chose to set up a strawman and knock it over. Those are not the actions of someone standing on a strong case. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 16

Leave a Reply